By: LARRY SITES
Re: Don Ward plagerizes

DON WARD to MARTY LEIPZIG on 02-10-95 20:36 re: ANOTHER EXCUSE

DW>   While most evolutionists still insist that there are at least a few
DW>examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, a growing number
DW>question whether the fossil record provides any real evidence of the
DW>transformation of one organism into another.  Evolutionist Steven M.
DW>Stanley concluded that: "The known fossil record fails to document a
DW>single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic
DW>transition." (_Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, 1979 p. 39)

Did he PERSONALLY do the research work to find this quote? Why has he not
given his real source credit? Why does he not follow the bibles rules about
stealing? He's not the first to follow this pattern of stealing lies and
passing them off as his own:

Area # 256  ORIGINS *(Talk)         10-08-94 10:26      Message # 678
From    : CHRIS NEDIN
To      : ALL
Subj    : RE: THE COMPLEAT CREATIO

Originally_From: cnedin@geology.adelaide.edu.au

Arthur Beile wrote:
[about the absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record]

> AB> "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of
phyletic
> AB>  evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition." Steven
> AB>  Stanley, `Macroevolution: Pattern and Process' p. 39, W.M. Freeman
and
> AB>  Company, 1979.

This is a classic example of the standard literalist creationist ploy of
'quoting out of context'. Sounds pretty damning right? Well it is suppost
to. The one thing you are not supposed to do is actually look up the
reference (creationists say "well look, we provided the reference", but how
many good ol' boys and girls would rush down to their local library to
check?). If you do, however, you will see that the quote is not the damning
statement it appears to be. Mr. Beile, whether willfully or through
ignorance is misleading you. Let's take a look at this quote.

Firstly you may think 'what is Stanley up to?' A palaeontologist, writing a
book called "Macroevolution - Pattern and Process" and claiming that there
is no support for evolution in the fossil record!
However a glance at the actual book will show the basic dishonesty that is
literal creationism.
The quote comes from the introduction to chapter 3 "Diverse Lines of
Evidence" - hmm, strange title, perhaps it should have read "Diverse Lines
of Non-evidence"?
Well, not really. Lets put the quote back into context. The begining of the
paragraph starts:

"Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very recent
past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a
real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great
importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the
punctuational model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1) . . . (5)
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic
evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no
evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." (p39)

Now, compare (5) above with Mr. Beile's quote. Notice the full stop after
"morphologic transition" and notice that there is no full stop in the
actual quote. Here Mr. Beile is being dishonest, since there is no full
stop in tha actual quote and there are 11 words missing. Whether Mr. Beile
is being willfully dishonest or wether it is through ignorance (i.e.
plaigerizing the quote from a secondary source) I do not know. However, the
dishonesty goes beyond that, since it is now clear that the passage is not
the stinging inditement of the fossil record that Mr. Beile would have you
believe. The passage is merely stating what palaeontologists *HAVE KNOWN
FOR DECADES*, that a purely gradualistic approach the evolution is invalid.
As Stanley says (and Mr. Beile must have somehow missed),
"quantum speciation is a real phenomenon." And,
"Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum
speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuational
model)."

What makes it even easier in this case is that palaeontologists, when
writing about evolution, will clearly state the problems with the old idea
of phyletic gradualism and why it was discarded in favour ofr an improved
model. Literalist creationists leap on the statements outlining the
problems of phyletic gradualism, ignore the context, and use them as if the
palaeontologist was refuting evolution.

Chris


 Larry Sites  JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49
___